There are actually a couple of presumably simple fixes that could make the naval handling slightly better. 1) Naval units should only be supplied while in port, not at sea. This was the way it worked earlier... 2) Add the disengagement penalty to naval units , similar to land units but for ships/coastal artillery. 3) Add group movement for sea transports and their naval escorts, currently you have to move them separately. 4) Make naval units take additional damage when attacked in port. Currently any land units in port soak up the attacks. Preferably add a Port Attack similar to the Airfield attack.

There are actually a couple of presumably simple fixes that could make the naval handling slightly better. 1) Naval units should only be supplied while in port, not at sea. This was the way it worked earlier... 2) Add the disengagement penalty to naval units , similar to land units but for ships/coastal artillery. 3) Add group movement for sea transports and their naval escorts, currently you have to move them separately. 4) Make naval units take additional damage when attacked in port. Currently any land units in port soak up the attacks. Preferably add a Port Attack similar to the Airfield attack.

Erik

All valid points and easy to implement I presume. Maybe you can tutor ole'Mac about how to use the Event Engine to create smashing naval stuff *see your Weseruebung scenario*? We all would appreciate it if you could take ole'Mac under your wings. Or should I say under the 'keel' of the ship...

On the one hand, I neither need nor especially want a full-blown naval combat model.

On the other hand, it's telling that Norm appears to have used Korea and Normandy as his 'design scenarios.' That is to say, he came up with a system that modeled these fairly well.

In both these campaigns, the navy operated without significant opposition -- and in fact, matters naval get very bad in TOAW if both sides have a navy or even if one side has a navy and the other side an airforce.

The naval system in TOAW can't handle opposition. That rules out a whole lot of campaigns.

We need a naval system that can at least operate at the general level of abstracted adequacy that the air war functions at.

Essentially naval forces are limited to shore bombardment roles. Which in a Land combat based game seems realistic to me. There are very few naval landings in which naval combat has ensued whilst landings were taking place, thus 'naval combat' isn't really an issue.

My favorite mission to do for a long time was Gallipoli, I had no problems using my navy to support my troops, and support well they did! This counts for Anzio etc etc.

It's like asking Harpoon devs to focus more on the land units. It's pointless. Harpoon is a naval sim and has basics of land units, TOAOW is a land sim and has the basics of navy. Thats how it should be. In a perfect world we could have everything we want, but TOAOW is a great game as it is and any updates should focus on the main part of the game rather than naval combat which, to be frank, doesn't belong in the game.

It's like asking Harpoon devs to focus more on the land units. It's pointless. Harpoon is a naval sim and has basics of land units, TOAOW is a land sim and has the basics of navy. Thats how it should be. In a perfect world we could have everything we want, but TOAOW is a great game as it is and any updates should focus on the main part of the game rather than naval combat which, to be frank, doesn't belong in the game.

However, a system that is vaguely accurate is a sin qua non. Else you might as well just delete the ships entirely. It's not an improvement where ships do things they simply couldn't -- as a rule -- do. Like sit offshore heaving shells inland without a break for the entire scenario. Like provide effective fire support 35 km inland.

The air model -- for example -- is basically valid. Very simplified, and there is certainly room for improvement, but it vaguely resembles military reality. The naval model immediately falls apart in any situation aside from that where one side had both complete naval and air supremacy and the kind of fleet train that was only developed by the US in the late war years.

We need something that -- like the air model -- at least resembles reality if we squint a bit. We don't have anything close to that when it comes to naval/seaborne operations.

Pick a dozen actions involving ships and aircraft on both sides participating in a land campaign. You'll be lucky if TOAW can adequately simulate even one of them. Conversely, the model at least kinda works for air warfare. For example, in Seelowe -- just for kicks -- I ran the whole Battle of Britain. Well, it all happened about three times too fast, but the result was fairly plausible. That's the kind of thing we need to have happen if -- say -- the British Mediterranean Fleet decides to interfere with German attempts to land units on Crete by sea. In TOAW of course, the British fleet would be helpless to prevent German seaborne units from coming ashore. On the bright side, they could easily help the New Zealanders to recover Maleme. They could even do it from the south side of the island. It bears no resemblance to reality at all.

The distinction is that when it comes to air warfare, we have a simplified simulation. When it comes to matters naval/seaborne, we don't actually have a simulation at all -- rather, artillery pieces that can put to sea and then engage in utterly ahistorical behavior. Their abilities and limitations are virtually unrelated to reality.

I'm not into Naval scenarios, but I have put some thought to it relating to the old Global War and Third Reich models and a possible relation to TOAW adaptions. It all seems very complex to implement to me. This for example :

quote:

... we need to have happen if -- say -- the British Mediterranean Fleet decides to interfere with German attempts to land units on Crete by sea.

I can't really remember how this type of interception worked in Global War. I'm inclined to say there wasn't any. In Third Reich, when you moved a naval unit the turn stopped and asked the opposing player if they wished to attempt interception (and then the fun started, with counter interceptions and counter-counter interceptions). That couldn't be done in TOAW, but I guess TOAW Naval units could be assigned a 'Naval Interception' order which would give them a chance to intercept enemy units moving within a pre-selected range, the chance could be influenced by loss tolerance (to hopefully prevent 3 destroyers from intercepting the 7th Fleet and getting suicided for no reason), and then air units from both sides would have to have the chance to be involved, and any shore units within range that can spot them ... ok, I'm tired of thinking about.

Hearts of Iron III (which is real time, and so not completely relevant here) has an intercept order for naval (and air) units. I can see it working in TOAW III. If, say, the home fleet is sailed out into the North Sea in 1914, and given intercept orders, and the German navy subsequently sorties, there would be an immediate naval combat resolution (abstracted) to tell the players something like German navy defeated - losses on both sides (if there were any) were... Or German navy slips through blockade, or is forced back into port. Well, you get the idea.

I'm not into Naval scenarios, but I have put some thought to it relating to the old Global War and Third Reich models and a possible relation to TOAW adaptions. It all seems very complex to implement to me. This for example :

quote:

... we need to have happen if -- say -- the British Mediterranean Fleet decides to interfere with German attempts to land units on Crete by sea.

I can't really remember how this type of interception worked in Global War. I'm inclined to say there wasn't any. In Third Reich, when you moved a naval unit the turn stopped and asked the opposing player if they wished to attempt interception (and then the fun started, with counter interceptions and counter-counter interceptions). That couldn't be done in TOAW, but I guess TOAW Naval units could be assigned a 'Naval Interception' order which would give them a chance to intercept enemy units moving within a pre-selected range, the chance could be influenced by loss tolerance (to hopefully prevent 3 destroyers from intercepting the 7th Fleet and getting suicided for no reason), and then air units from both sides would have to have the chance to be involved, and any shore units within range that can spot them ... ok, I'm tired of thinking about.

Yeah. In general terms, I think it would work better if ships were handled somewhat like air units, and could either carry out specific 'bombardment' missions and/or react to enemy naval/seaborne movement with attempts to intercept.

...and not particularly at the player's discretion (aside from assigning the naval mission and/or loss/risk setting.) After all, naval interceptions et al were often serendipitous. To take one example, the German units attempting a seaborne landing would have been just fine if they'd just steamed blindly ahead. As it was, they turned back in response to a false alarm, recovered their nerve, reversed course again -- and steamed straight into a real RN flotilla. Similar uncontrollable twists of fate at Midway, etc would induce a highly realistic sense of caution in players when it came to assigning missions to their less expendable naval units.

Point is, land and air warfare could certainly do with improvement. Matters naval/seaborne need to be rethought.